Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:19:33.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Domestic Colonies in Canada: Rethinking the Definition of Colony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2018

Barbara Arneil
Barbara Arneil*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, C425-1866 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6 T 1Z1, email: arneil@mail.ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is a colony? In this article, I reconsider the meaning of colony in light of the existence of domestic colonies in Canada around the turn of the twentieth century. The two case studies examined are farm colonies for the mentally disabled and ill in Ontario and British Columbia and utopian colonies for Doukhobors in Saskatchewan. I show how both kinds of colonies are characterized by the same three principles found in Lockean settler colonialism: segregation, agrarian labour on uncultivated soil and improvement/cultivation of people and land. Defining “colony” in this way is theoretically interesting as it is different from the definition found in most dictionaries and post-colonial scholarship. There is also an inherent contradiction within domestic colonies as they both support state power over indigenous peoples, Doukhobors and the mentally ill and disabled but also challenge the principles of domination, individualism, private property and sovereignty upon which the Canadian settler state was founded.

Résumé

Qu'est-ce qu'une colonie? Je reprends, dans cet article, le sens donné à cette notion à la lumière des colonies intérieures existant au Canada vers le tournant du XXe siècle. Les deux études de cas examinées portent sur des colonies agricoles pour des personnes ayant une déficience mentale et malades en Ontario et en Colombie-Britannique et des colonies utopiques pour des doukhobors en Saskatchewan. Je montre comment les deux types de colonies sont caractérisés par les mêmes trois principes que l'on retrouve dans le colonialisme lockéen: ségrégation, travail agraire sur des terres non cultivées et amélioration des sols. Il est théoriquement intéressant de définir ainsi la notion de « colonie », car elle diffère de la définition de la plupart des dictionnaires et de la littérature postcoloniale. Il y a aussi une contradiction inhérente entre les colonies intérieures qui, toutes deux, soutiennent la primauté du pouvoir de l’État sur les communautés autochtones, les doukhobors et les personnes ayant une déficience mentale et malades, mais qui contestent également les principes de domination, d'individualisme, de propriété privée et de souveraineté sur lesquels l’État colonial canadien a été fondé.

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 497 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arneil, Barbara. 1996. John Locke and America: A Defense of English Colonialism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Avrich, Paul. 1980. “Kropotkin in America.” International Review of Social History 25 (1): 1–34.Google Scholar
Balandier, Georges. 1966. “The Colonial Situation: A Theoretical Approach.” In Social Change: The Colonial Situation, ed. Wallerstein, Immanuel. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Beaumont, G. and Tocqueville, A. 1833. On the penitentiary system in the United States and its application in France with an appendix on penal colonies, and also, statistical notes. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard.Google Scholar
Bednasek, C.D. 2009. Aboriginal and Colonial Geographies of the File Hills Farm Colony. Doctoral dissertation, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.Google Scholar
Bernstein, C. 1920. “Colony and Extra-Institutional Care for the Feeble-Minded.” Mental Hygiene 4 (1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Bernstein, C. 1921. “Colony Care Isolation of Defective and Dependent Cases.” American Association of Mental Deficiency Proceedings 26: 43–59.Google Scholar
Blauner, Robert. 1972. Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Booth, W. 1890. In darkest England and the way out. Salvation Army. http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library/booth_darkest_england.pdf (Dec. 2017).Google Scholar
Burgess, T.J.W. 1905. “Presidential Address: The Insane in Canada.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American-Medico Psychological Asscoiation. Montreal, Canada. American Journal of Insanity 62 (1): 1–36.Google Scholar
Byrd, Jodi. 2011. “‘Been to the Nation, Lord, but I couldn't stay there’: American Indian Sovereignty, Cherokee Freedmen and the Incommensurability of the Internal.” Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 13 (1): 31–52.Google Scholar
Carmichael, Adam. 2013. “Race and Assimilation: Doukhobor Education as Colonial History.” Paper presented at the CPSA conference, Victoria.Google Scholar
Carter, Sarah. 1989. “Two Acres and a Cow: ‘Peasant’ Farming for the Indians of the Northwest, 1889–97.” Canadian Historical Review 70 (1): 27–52.Google Scholar
Sunny, Dhillon and Bailey, Ian. 2012. “A Fear that Spans Generations.” Globe and Mail (Toronto), Dec. 1, S. 1.Google Scholar
“Farm for Epilectics.” 1936. Stouffville Sun-Tribune. April 23.Google Scholar
“Farm Work for Lunatics: Dr. G.A. Blumer Describes the Colony of the Utica State Hospital.” 1899. NewYork Times, May 26, 14.Google Scholar
Fernald, W.E. 1893. “The History of the Treatment of the Feeble Minded.” In Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, 20th Annual Session, June 8–11. Boston: Press of Geo. H. Ellis.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1985. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Beacon Press: BostonGoogle Scholar
Hechter, Michael. 1975. Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, Beverley. 2008. From Barnyards to Bedsides to Books and Beyond: The Evolution and Professionalization of Registered Psychiatric Nursing in Manitoba, 1955–1980. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Hodgins, Frank Hon. 1919. Report on the Care and Control of the Mentally Defective and Feeble-Minded in Ontario, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, His Majesty's Printer.Google Scholar
Horvath, Ronald. 1972. “A Definition of Colonialism” Current Anthropology 13 (1): 45–57.Google Scholar
Kropotkin, Peter. 1893. “Advice to Those About to Emigrate: A Letter on Home Colonisation in Australia.” Freedom (March) 14. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1893/advice.htm (April 2014).Google Scholar
Kropotkin, Peter. 1898a. “Letter to Mavor,” August 31. http://content.lib.sfu.ca/cdm/compoundobject/collection/mavor/id/2533 (April 2014).Google Scholar
Kropotkin, Peter. 1898b. Fields, Factories and Workshops: or Industry Combined with Agriculture and Brain Work with Manual Work. New York: G.P. Putnam.Google Scholar
Kropotkin, Peter. 1898c. “Some of the Resources of Canada.” The Nineteenth Century (March): 494–514.Google Scholar
Langmuir, John. 1879. Annual Report of the Inspector of Asylums, Prisons and Public Charities, Archives of Ontario.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1988. Two Treatises on Government, ed. Laslett, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacMurchy, H. 1912. “Farm Colony for the Feeble-Minded.” Orillia Packet, May 15.Google Scholar
MacMurchy, H. 1920. The almosts; a study of the feeble-minded. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
“Manitoba Survey: Care of the Mentally Unfit.” 1919. Canadian Journal of Mental Hygiene 1: 77–82.Google Scholar
Mavor, J. 1893. “Labor Colonies and the Unemployed.” Journal of Political Economy 21: 26–53.Google Scholar
Mavor, J., Motion, J.R., Speir, J. and Wright, D.. 1892. Report on labor colonies. Glasgow: Association for improving the condition of the people.Google Scholar
“Mental Defectives Increasing Rapidly.” 1916. Toronto World, Dec.,15.Google Scholar
“Mental Hygiene Survey of Saskatchewan.” 1922. Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene 1920, Canadian Journal of Mental Hygiene, vol. 3:4: 315–99Google Scholar
Mayes, Hubert G. 1999. “Resurrection: Tolstoy and Canada's Doukhobors” Canada's National History Society Magazine 79 (5): 39–44.Google Scholar
Miller, J. R. 2000. Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Noll, Steven. 1995. Feeble-minded in our midst: Institutions for the mentally retarded in the South, 1900–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Ontario, Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 1907. Report upon the Care of the Feeble-Minded in Ontario. His Majesty's Printer. http://arachive.org/stream/feeblemindedinn1907onta/feebleminddjvu.txt.Google Scholar
Osterhammel, Jurgen. 1997. Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Trans. Frisch, Shelly L.. Princeton NJ: Markus Wiener.Google Scholar
Park, Deborah C. 1995. An Imprisoned Text: Reading the Canadian Mental-Handicap Asylum. Doctoral dissertation, York University, Toronto, Ontatio.Google Scholar
“Plan Farm Colony for Feeble-Minded: Education Board Approvies Scheme to Care for Children.” 1916. Toronto World, Dec. 8:4.Google Scholar
Reaume, Geoffrey. 2006. “Patients at Work: Insane Asylum Inmate Labour in Ontario, 1841–1900.” In Mental Health and Canadian Society: Historical Perspectives, ed. Moran, James and Wright, David. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Roman, L.G., Brown, S., Noble, S., Wainer, R. and Young, A.E.. 2009. “No Time for Nostalgia! Asylum-making, Medicalized Colonialism in British Columbia 1859–97 and Artistic Praxis for Social Transformation.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22: 17–63.Google Scholar
Said, Edward. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Tarasoff, Koozma. 2006. “Doukhobor Settlements” Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/doukhobor_settlement.html (September 2016).Google Scholar
Thomson, M. 1998. The problem of mental deficiency: eugenics, democracy, and social policy in Britain c.1870–1959. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tolstoy, Leo. 1900. “A Letter to those Doukhobors who have migrated to Canada” February 27, 1900 022-001-007-007.Multicultural Canada. http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/node/142193 (April 2014).Google Scholar
Toth, Stephen. 2006. Beyond Papillon the French overseas penal colonies, 1854–1952. Lincoln NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Treaty Texts, 4 and 6, 1966. Queen's Printer, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Tuck, Eve and Wayne, Yang K.. 2012 “Decolonization is not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1 (1): 1–40.Google Scholar
Veracini, Lorenzo. 2010. Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wheatley, Thelma. 2017.”Sexual Abuse at Huronia.” http//thelmawheatley.com/sexual-abuse-at huronia (Dec, 2017).Google Scholar
Woodcock, George and Avakumovic, Ivan. 1968. The Doukhobors. Toronto and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yerbury, J.C. 1984. “‘The ‘Sons of Freedom’: Doukhobors and the Canadian State.” Canadian Ethnic Studies/Etudes ethniques au Canada 16 (2): 47–70.Google Scholar